Rakesh, As an aside to your comment to ALlin >A further reply to Allin: > > >> >> > [T] mistake you are making here is thinking that Marx wants >>> to derive the prices at t+1 via a determination of the >>> average rate of profit. >> >>No, I don't see any "t"s in this analysis. > > >Well by putting them there, everything works out, there is no >transformation problem, and Marx's value theory does not have to be >discarded. The only people who are going to think there is still a >transformation problem are those who like the kinds of mathematical >problems general equilibrium exercises generate--counting equations >and unknowns which seems to make Sraffa so pleasingly familiar to >some of you. If I am going to do math, it will be things like Thom's >catastrope theory or Goodwin's Lotka-Volterra equations. > I do "do" math in precisely the sense to which you aspire--check my 1995 JPKE paper on that--and I am a critic of general equilibrium, especially when done by non-neoclassical economists--check my 1998 JOPE paper for that. And yet I still believe that, if you accept the premise that labor is the only source of value, you will still have a transformation problem in a dynamic model. In other words, you are setting up a false intellectual opposition. Steve Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance University of Western Sydney Macarthur Building 11 Room 30, Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST